Even the wealthy dislike their financial advisers

The stock market rally hasn’t been enough to make investors -- even super-rich ones -- any happier with their financial consultants.

By The Fiscal Times Oct 12, 2012 5:15PM
Image: Man sitting at dining table with financial adviser --CorbisBy Suzanne McGeeThe Fiscal Times logo

The stock market has rallied decisively in recent months, leaving the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) with a return that has, almost miraculously, crossed into double-digit territory. But that hasn’t been enough to make investors -- even ultra-wealthy ones -- any happier with their financial advisers.

A new survey by Spectrem Group shows that less than three-fourths of investors with a net worth between $5 million and $25 million (excluding their home) say they are content with their adviser. Only 52% of them would follow their adviser to another firm; about half say their face-to-face meetings are "excellent." As for those newsletters -- well, if you're an adviser, you might as well quit before you lose more fans. A mere 24% of ultra-wealthy individuals find them worthwhile enough to classify them as "excellent."

Investor dissatisfaction has intensified within the last year or so. The 73% who said they are satisfied with their adviser is down from 80% in 2011 and 81% in 2010, so this isn’t just a group peeved because their money manager flogged them some dodgy mortgage securities or toxic auction-rate preferred securities and then, to cap it all off, left them to lose half of their remaining assets during the 2008-2009 market meltdown.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the less money you have, the less likely you are to be satisfied with your adviser. Single-digit millionaires, as they are referred to by some industry analysts, have a satisfaction rate of 72%, Spectrem says. (It defines that group as having between $1 million and $5 million of liquid net worth.) And if you’re merely a member of the "mass affluent," with $100,000 or more in assets, well, your satisfaction doesn’t even break above 70%.

None of this is good news for financial advisers, needless to say. After a bad year in 2008, they have struggled to keep abreast of volatile markets and identify investments that stand a chance of outperforming, only to be blindsided by emerging markets that decline to measure up to expectations and European policymakers’ apparent inability to resolve their fiscal crisis. In a period characterized by rock-bottom bond yields, even resorting to safe haven investments probably hasn’t kept clients happy.

And yes, it is particularly alarming that the smaller the client’s asset base, the less likely he or she is to believe that his adviser is working in his interest.

It’s worrying on several fronts. First, there are many more investors lower on the net worth ladder than there are ultra-wealthy individuals, yet these investors may have a harder time getting sound and suitable advice. Experienced and capable advisory firms must limit their client base to those they believe they can serve adequately -- a few hundred families, or in some cases only a few dozen. If you have a portfolio that is only $75,000 or $100,000, the odds are that unless your sister-in-law works for a great advisory firm, the kinds of financial pros willing to accept your business aren’t going to be in a position to give you much of their time or much customized advice.

Second, investors with less accumulated wealth are less likely to have a deep knowledge of investment strategies and an ability to oversee their own portfolios -- even as a mistake is likely to cost them far more dearly than it is their wealthier peers.

That mass affluent group also can include younger investors -- individuals in their 30s, just starting out and saving diligently for retirement. To the extent that they aren’t well served today, they may end up developing bad investment habits -- chasing momentum, failing to factor risk into their thinking, making errors in their asset allocation decisions.

They also may end up developing a lasting suspicion or wariness of advisers, something that may end up as bad news for both groups. Today’s young lawyer in his third year as an associate may well be a partner overseeing a lucrative practice at a major law firm in 15 years’ time, and pulling in millions a year. If he feels he was given short shrift by his adviser a decade or more ago, he’s less likely to be willing to work with or listen to a more competent adviser down the road.

Investors have a responsibility to find an adviser that’s right for them -- it’s their money at stake, after all. But unhappy clients may also want to bear in mind the kind of climate in which their adviser is operating. Rarely have their been quite as many macro-level uncertainties, from the "fiscal cliff" and the eurozone crisis, to the lackluster performance of the emerging markets, especially China. Add to that the absurdly low interest rates, and you’ve got a recipe for a difficult investment environment, especially when a diligent adviser is managing a portfolio with an eye to risk management as well as tax consequences and other cost-related issues.

Even with all that, advisers can do better. They can foster stronger and more successful relationships by selecting their clients carefully, making sure that they only take on those whom they feel they can serve well -- and that doesn’t just mean those with the most money. If a client’s investment style isn’t compatible with that of their adviser, then it’s up to the professional to politely say, "I don’t think I am able to be helpful to you in this situation" -- not as a threat, but as part of a suggestion that they might be better served by turning elsewhere.

George Walper, president of the Spectrem Group, suggested in a press release announcing the survey results that “advisers need to demonstrate sophisticated, in-depth knowledge about taxes, financial planning and related issues while working more collaboratively with investors who may well have identified investing opportunities on their own.”

I think Walper has diagnosed the problem, but the solution strikes me as a little too simplistic.
The more sophisticated (and wealthy) the client, the more sophisticated the knowledge base among advisers these days. At the larger firms catering to individuals or families with tens of millions of dollars, most advisers now work in groups that include accountants, lawyers and other professionals. At the lower end of the spectrum, it’s probably unreasonable to expect sophisticated advice; if you have $100,000, you aren’t going to be dabbling in hedge funds, for instance, and your adviser probably knows the relative merits of actively managed mutual funds and ETFs.

Nor am I sure that advisers necessarily want to defer to their clients’ eagerness to identify their own investments, even in the name of keeping them happier. Short-term happiness is no bargain if it comes at the expense of long-term portfolio losses, after all – and few advisers dread anything more than having to evaluate the great stock tip or investment idea that their client heard about at a cocktail party or on the golf course. But if you’re not an accountant or otherwise a financial professional, you’ll probably sleep better at night and have more time available for your other pursuits if you are willing to entrust your financial affairs to an adviser -- after doing a suitable amount of due diligence, naturally.

The relationship between an adviser and his client is fraught with peril. But just because you’re not as happy with your portfolio as you used to be doesn’t mean it’s time to cast the money manager off and go solo. While that might be fine for a handful of people, for most a better option is to embark on a quest for an adviser with whose style, investment philosophy and personality you can be at ease. The markets offer enough sources of stress; your adviser should help you manage that, not add to it.

Suzanne McGee is a columnist at The Fiscal Times. Subscribe to The Fiscal Times' FREE newsletter.

More from The Fiscal Times

Oct 12, 2012 7:20PM
Irrespective of your net worth or how much money you have to invest, thoroughly scrutinize any financial planner and/or financial advisory/money management company before investing that first dollar with them!  Regretfully, I made the worse mistake of my life by investing with Fisher Investments (a singular noun).  As a client of Fisher Investments for about 4 1/2 years, my portfolio lost over $90,000 in addition to paying almost $30,000 in "investment advisory fees."  It expressly targets, pursues, and entraps, "high net worth individuals" (a direct quote from its ads), primarily seniors and/or retirees with $500,000 or more in assets to invest; for many, this is their life savings!  It does this through sophisticated, misleading, and slick "snake oil" ads in financial publications (Forbes, etc.) and many financial wed sites (MSN Money, etc.).  Fisher Investments not only has a dismal record of profitability with a flagrant disregard for safety of principal, but just as egregiously, it charges exorbitant  "investment advisory fees" (1 1/2%) plus additional transaction costs and expenses which are more than excessive, they're downright greedy!  Moreover, these fees, costs, and expenses are totally unrelated to its investment performance -- clients are charged the same percentage fees, costs, and expenses whether their portfolio gains or loses value! 

To find the truth about Fisher Investments, just look up the Purisima Total Return Fund (PURIX), which Fisher Investments manages and which, not just coincidentally, mirrors the portfolio returns (% profits) of most of Fisher Investments' Private Clients.  MorningStar, a well- known and probably the most prestigious stock and mutual fund rating service, rates this fund "2-stars" on a scale of 1 to 5 stars (1-star = Worst , 5-stars = Best).  Purisima's 5-year performance (annualized return) is - 4.50%   (NEGATIVE 4.50%); that's pathetic by any rating system.  And again, not just coincidentally, Purisima's expense ratio (the % fees charged to clients), much like Fisher Investments, is an exorbitant 1.35%!

It seems that the only people making money at Fisher Investments is Ken Fisher, CEO and principal owner, and his "Yes Men" or whom he refers to as the "Investment Policy Committee."  In fact Ken Fisher, with a net worth of over $1.7 Billion, is ranked number 263 on the Forbes "The Riches People in America."  Naturally, this is his "cut" of the exorbitant advisory fees and other costs that Fisher Investments charges its clients.  Allegedly, a reliable source has reported that Ken Fisher invests his own money only in US Treasuries!  It's absolutely ludicrous how Fisher Investments retains clients!
Don Moore
Oct 13, 2012 8:13AM

Why any one would use a "Financial Advisor" is mind boggling to me. It is very simple to open an online brokerage account, buy Buy Big Name Iconic Stocks that pay dividends, and for the most part sit back and watch your money grow. My portfolio was up over 8% last year and almost 18% this year dispite last weeks much deserved correction.


Wake up people and take control of your money before all these Mutual Funds and their phony "Advisors" suck you dry!  

Oct 13, 2012 11:07AM

The truth is, if you put 60% of your money in the S&P 500 and 40% in the total bond

market over a 20 year period you`ll beat 95% of advisors.Wall Street may offer a hit

on me for saying that, but it`s the truth.There`s many Bernie Madoff`s out there that

havn`t been caught.

Oct 13, 2012 7:36AM
My wife & I have about $700K in investments. We've been with our financial advisor for about 12 years. Early on we made the decision educate ourselves about investments & play it safe. Occasionally we will come upon an investment that has potential & we use our advisor for what she is...an advisor...before a decesion is made. Her commission is 1.25% which is about standard for a financial advisor on standard transactions. One thing that bothered me recently was her firm has started pushing investment products that have a 4-6% commission. Had to stop her & remind her of our goals & personal principles of investing.   
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?


Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.


StockScouter rates stocks from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, using a system of advanced mathematics to determine a stock's expected risk and return. Ratings are displayed on a bell curve, meaning there will be fewer ratings of 1 and 10 and far more of 4 through 7.

125 rated 1
267 rated 2
455 rated 3
612 rated 4
682 rated 5
695 rated 6
632 rated 7
472 rated 8
279 rated 9
147 rated 10

Top Picks

TAT&T Inc9



Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.

Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.

Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.